RAJASTHAN HIGH CHOURT CHIEF JUSTICE BENCH DECISION ON TET / and RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF TET EXAM PART - V
Rajasthan Highcourt Chief Justice Bench Decision, Rajasthan Highcourt,
PART - V
Mr.Kumawat in this backdrop has assertively urged that the State Government having been empowered by the NCTE guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to grant concession to the reserved category candidates mentioned therein vis-a-vis the prescribed qualifying 60% marks to pass the TET examination in accordance with the extant reservation policy, it was permissible for it to accord
relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% and thus, all pleas to the contrary are wholly untenable and are liable to be rejected in limine. As the role to conduct the TET had been exclusively left by the NCTE to the State Government, essentially however, in accordance with its guidelines, the relaxation granted by it (State Government) in terms of its policy as embodied in the letter dated 23.3.2011 had been perfectly valid, he urged.
Apart from contending that the State Government had kept the NCTE informed of the grant of such relaxation at all relevant times, he argued that as none had challenged the concession so granted, the validity of TET had remained unscathed. The learned Additional Advocate General maintained that as a pass in the TET was only a condition of eligibility to participate in the process of recruitment as Teacher in Level I and Level II, the concession granted in the conduct thereof (TET) did not
have any bearing on the latter exercise. In addition to the plea of estoppel against the respondent-writ petitioners to assail the State Government's action to grant relaxation in TET in face of their unqualified participation in the process of recruitment conducted thereafter, learned counsel insisted that the select list eventually drawn up was on the sole basis of merit and thus, the learned Single Judge ought to have rejected the impeachment of the selection in limine. Not only the relaxation of the qualifying marks to pass TET did have the bearing only of facilitating participation in the otherwise independent process of recruitment held subsequent thereto, the extent of concession granted was dependent on various local factors varying from State to State, he urged. The
learned Additional Advocate General emphasized that the concession in terms of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 was distinctly different from and independent of the relaxation of 5% permitted by the notification dated 29.7.2011, the same being vis-a-vis qualifying marks in the senior secondary/graduation tests and not qua TET.
Mr.Kumawat asserted against alleged compromise on merit and contended that in absence of any challenge to the guidelines of the NCTE, the writ petitions ought to have been summarily rejected. He questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions as well on the ground of failure on the part of the petitioners to assail the advertisement as well as to implead the selected candidates. Following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Haridas Parsedia V/s Urmila Shakya & Ors.
((2000) 1 SCC 81), Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. V/s State of UP and ors. ((2010) 3 SCC 119), Manish Kumar Shahi V/s State of Bihar & ors. ((2010) 12 SCC 576) and Vijendra Kumar Verma V/s Public Service Commission & ors. ((2011)1 SCC 150) and of this Court in Sheikh Mohd.Afzal & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 186) were
relied upon.
The learned counsel for the NCTE while adopting the arguments on behalf of the appellant-State referred to the Regulations of 2009 to justify the grant of 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks in the senior secondary/graduation examination. According to him, such relaxation not having been granted in the notification dated 23.8.2010 laying down the minimum qualifications to be eligible for appointment as Teacher, the same was permitted on representations being filed seeking such concession. The learned counsel reiterated that relaxation in the notification dated 29.7.2011 was with regard to marks in
the qualifying examination as referred to therein and was not relatable to the concession granted for TET. The learned counsel endorsed the empowerment of the State Government as per guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to grant concession to the reserved category candidates as per its extant reservation policy.
The learned counsel for some selectee candidates also figuring as appellants in the batch urged that as the adjudication in the writ proceedings had been undertaken ex-parte against them, the impugned judgment and order is ab initio void and on this ground alone is liable to be adjudged as such. Apart from contending that neither any notice had been issued to them nor they were heard in the proceedings, they demurred that even the applications filed on their behalf seeking impleadment, were not considered on merits. They raised the plea of estoppel against the respondents-writ petitioners and underlined that they have unreservedly participated in both the process without any cavil and emphasized that the selectee candidates-appellants were higher in order of merit and that deferment of appointment of many in view of the intervention of this Court at the instance of the
unsuccessful candidates has resulted in serious prejudice to them. According to the learned counsels, the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 had not been questioned by the respondents-writ-petitioners and thus, the learned Single Judge erred in dealing with the same while adjudicating the issues raised in the writ proceedings. As relaxation in the marks for the TET in terms of the guidelines of the NCTE had been pursuant to the reservation policy of the State Government, the scrutiny thereof was beyond the purview of judicial review, more so, as the exercise of State power is traceable to authorization conferred by the NCTE, they urged. While contending that the relaxation
qua TET was in advancement of the spirit of the right to education as embedded in the Act of 2009, the learned counsels endorsed the stand of the State Government as well as the NCTE that the concession contemplated in the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 was distinctly different from that notification dated 29.7.2011 and operated in independent domains. Apart from underlining that many other Governments had accorded higher percentage of relaxation in TET and that recruitment had been made only on the basis of the results in that test, it was urged that the selectee candidates had scored higher than the unsuccessful writ petitioners in the main recruitment process as well. As the NCTE guidelines had not been challenged by the respondents-writ-petitioners, in the overall scheme of evaluation of comparative merit, the selectee candidates having been adjudged to be superior
on the said touchstone, the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed, they insisted. That the assailment of the respondents-writ petitioners was delayed in the face of time limit of 60 days as referred to in the advertisement, was also asserted. Reliance was placed on the following
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma & ors. V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. ((1984) 4 SCC 251), Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) V/s Union of India and ors. ((2002) 2 SCC 333), K.H.Siraj V/s High Court of Kerala & ors. ((2006) 6 SCC 395), Union of India & ors. V/s S.Vinodh Kumar & ors. ((2007) 8 SCC 100), K.Manjusree V/s State of Andhra Pradesh
& anr. ((2008) 3 SCC 512), Dhananjay Malik & ors. V/s State of Uttaranchal & ors. ((2008) 4 SCC 171), Dingal and ors. V/s State of West Bengal & ors. ((2009) 1 SCC 768) and Vijendra Kumar Verma V/s Public Service Commission & ors. ((2011)1 SCC 150). Mr.Vigyan Shah leading the arguments on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners has assiduously urged that the underlying purpose of TET being to secure an uniform national performance standard and quality in
teaching, the relaxation in the qualifying percentage of pass therein, is an apparent compromise with this salutary objective and thus, the concession ranging from 10% to 20% as accorded by the State Government is impermissible and invalid. Moreover, no such concession was allowable during the process, but at best at the time of appointment in terms of the extant reservation policy of the State Government and that too, if construed to be warranted, he insisted. While admitting that the validity of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 though had been assailed in Durga Das (supra) before the Single
Bench of this Court and that the interim order of restraint passed therein initially was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court, the learned counsel also admitted that the writ petition was thereafter dismissed as infructuous. Referring to the notification dated 29.7.2011, Mr.Shah emphatically urged that the relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks did signify in no uncertain terms that no
candidate securing less than 55% marks could have been declared to have passed TET. He insisted that a conjoint reading of notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 did unequivocally convey this conclusion. He urged as well that the candidates, who had secured marks between 55% to 60% on availing such relaxation could not be accommodated against the seats identified for unreserved category, as the same, if permitted, would denote compromise on merit, a consequence extinctive of the
cardinal objectives of the Act of 2009.
Referring to the circulars dated 17.6.1996, 24.6.2008 and 12.9.2012 referred to in the rejoinder laid in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13488/2012, Mr.Shah has urged that in terms thereof, the reserved category candidates availing the benefit of concession in qualifying marks could not have been accommodated against the seats meant for open category candidates. The learned counsel urged in
this backdrop that the circular no.F.7(1)DOP/A-II/99 dated 11.5.2011 of the Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan permitting such migration is non est or in the alternative, has a prospective effect and could not have been applied to the selection process in hand.
Mr.Shah has thus urged that only those reserved category candidates, who had availed the benefit of age and fee relaxation, only could have permissibly migrated into the quota earmarked for the general candidates and none others. That in no view of the matter, relaxation/concession in excess of 5% in the pass marks of TET could have been accorded by the Government in supersession of the NCTE guidelines, has been emphatically underlined to contend that the selection process being vitiated by gross illegalities, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for.
Mr.Shah sought to endorse his arguments by referring to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr.Preeti Srivastava & anr. V/s The State of M.P.& ors. ((1999) 7 SCC 120), Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission V/s Baloji Badhavat & ors.
(2009(5) SCC 1) and Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. V/s State of UP & ors. ((2010) 3 SCC 119), of this Court in Sushil Sompura & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3964/2011 decided on 20.5.2011) and of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shabir Khan & anr. V/s The State of Punjab ((2012) 167 PLR 29).
The contentious pleadings and the assiduous submissions founded thereon have been duly assayed.
Before venturing into the thick of the controversy, it would be apt to clear the deck qua two peripheral issues, namely, non-impleadment of necessary parties and estoppel.
It has been emphatically asserted that the selected candidates, not having been impleaded as respondents, the writ petitions ought to have been rejected in limine.
The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma (supra) and Dingal & Ors.(supra) have been relied upon to reinforce this contention. In both the decisions, their Lordships while disapproving the interference of the jurisdictional High Court with the selection of candidates
not impleaded, did observe in the contextual facts that neither they nor their representatives had been impleaded as parties.
Apart from the impeachment of the recruitment process as a whole to be in violation of the NCTE
Regulations and the essence of the Act 2009, in the instant proceedings, a scrutiny of the writ petitions involved disclose impleadment of some of the respondents whose selection had been impugned.
The State of Rajasthan and its functionaries as well as the NCTE and the concerned Panchayati Raj institution have been impleaded as respondents. The pleadings of the State Government and the NCTE in particular, attest the initiatives on their behalf to defend the process undertaken. Further, elaborate arguments have been advanced before the learned Single Judge as well as in the appeals on behalf of the selected candidates figuring as appellants touching upon all pertinent aspects of the
debate projecting a complete spectrum of assertions relevant to the issues. In this factual premise, we are of the view that the interest of the selected candidates as a whole has been adequately secured and that mere non impleadment of all of them does not render the impugned judgment and order illegal for want of fairness in action.
On the plea of estoppel as well, we are not inclined to non-suit the respondents/writ petitioners in view of legal issues of moment raised, impelling scrutiny thereof in public interest. A participatory process has been assiduously questioned on the ground of contravention of the provisions of the Act 2009, the guidelines of the NCTE, the Nodal Authority under the enactment, empowered to
prescribe the norms statutorily intended to administer the process of recruitment of teachers to accomplish the constitutional vision of providing a free and compulsory quality education to all children upto the age of 14 years.
Rajasthan Highcourt Chief Justice Bench Decision, Rajasthan Highcourt,
*****************************
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.
2013 mein TET KE SAMBANDH MEIN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT KI CHIEF JUSTICE KEE BENCH DWARA DIYA GAYA NIRNAY.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION REGARDING TET EXAM AND
RECRUITMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS EXAM
*******************
टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment /SARKARI
NAUKRI NEWS / SARKARI NAUKRI News
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com/#ixzz36cV9AUClPART - V
Mr.Kumawat in this backdrop has assertively urged that the State Government having been empowered by the NCTE guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to grant concession to the reserved category candidates mentioned therein vis-a-vis the prescribed qualifying 60% marks to pass the TET examination in accordance with the extant reservation policy, it was permissible for it to accord
relaxation ranging from 10% to 20% and thus, all pleas to the contrary are wholly untenable and are liable to be rejected in limine. As the role to conduct the TET had been exclusively left by the NCTE to the State Government, essentially however, in accordance with its guidelines, the relaxation granted by it (State Government) in terms of its policy as embodied in the letter dated 23.3.2011 had been perfectly valid, he urged.
Apart from contending that the State Government had kept the NCTE informed of the grant of such relaxation at all relevant times, he argued that as none had challenged the concession so granted, the validity of TET had remained unscathed. The learned Additional Advocate General maintained that as a pass in the TET was only a condition of eligibility to participate in the process of recruitment as Teacher in Level I and Level II, the concession granted in the conduct thereof (TET) did not
have any bearing on the latter exercise. In addition to the plea of estoppel against the respondent-writ petitioners to assail the State Government's action to grant relaxation in TET in face of their unqualified participation in the process of recruitment conducted thereafter, learned counsel insisted that the select list eventually drawn up was on the sole basis of merit and thus, the learned Single Judge ought to have rejected the impeachment of the selection in limine. Not only the relaxation of the qualifying marks to pass TET did have the bearing only of facilitating participation in the otherwise independent process of recruitment held subsequent thereto, the extent of concession granted was dependent on various local factors varying from State to State, he urged. The
learned Additional Advocate General emphasized that the concession in terms of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 was distinctly different from and independent of the relaxation of 5% permitted by the notification dated 29.7.2011, the same being vis-a-vis qualifying marks in the senior secondary/graduation tests and not qua TET.
Mr.Kumawat asserted against alleged compromise on merit and contended that in absence of any challenge to the guidelines of the NCTE, the writ petitions ought to have been summarily rejected. He questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions as well on the ground of failure on the part of the petitioners to assail the advertisement as well as to implead the selected candidates. Following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Haridas Parsedia V/s Urmila Shakya & Ors.
((2000) 1 SCC 81), Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. V/s State of UP and ors. ((2010) 3 SCC 119), Manish Kumar Shahi V/s State of Bihar & ors. ((2010) 12 SCC 576) and Vijendra Kumar Verma V/s Public Service Commission & ors. ((2011)1 SCC 150) and of this Court in Sheikh Mohd.Afzal & anr. V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 186) were
relied upon.
The learned counsel for the NCTE while adopting the arguments on behalf of the appellant-State referred to the Regulations of 2009 to justify the grant of 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks in the senior secondary/graduation examination. According to him, such relaxation not having been granted in the notification dated 23.8.2010 laying down the minimum qualifications to be eligible for appointment as Teacher, the same was permitted on representations being filed seeking such concession. The learned counsel reiterated that relaxation in the notification dated 29.7.2011 was with regard to marks in
the qualifying examination as referred to therein and was not relatable to the concession granted for TET. The learned counsel endorsed the empowerment of the State Government as per guidelines dated 11.2.2011 to grant concession to the reserved category candidates as per its extant reservation policy.
The learned counsel for some selectee candidates also figuring as appellants in the batch urged that as the adjudication in the writ proceedings had been undertaken ex-parte against them, the impugned judgment and order is ab initio void and on this ground alone is liable to be adjudged as such. Apart from contending that neither any notice had been issued to them nor they were heard in the proceedings, they demurred that even the applications filed on their behalf seeking impleadment, were not considered on merits. They raised the plea of estoppel against the respondents-writ petitioners and underlined that they have unreservedly participated in both the process without any cavil and emphasized that the selectee candidates-appellants were higher in order of merit and that deferment of appointment of many in view of the intervention of this Court at the instance of the
unsuccessful candidates has resulted in serious prejudice to them. According to the learned counsels, the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 had not been questioned by the respondents-writ-petitioners and thus, the learned Single Judge erred in dealing with the same while adjudicating the issues raised in the writ proceedings. As relaxation in the marks for the TET in terms of the guidelines of the NCTE had been pursuant to the reservation policy of the State Government, the scrutiny thereof was beyond the purview of judicial review, more so, as the exercise of State power is traceable to authorization conferred by the NCTE, they urged. While contending that the relaxation
qua TET was in advancement of the spirit of the right to education as embedded in the Act of 2009, the learned counsels endorsed the stand of the State Government as well as the NCTE that the concession contemplated in the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 was distinctly different from that notification dated 29.7.2011 and operated in independent domains. Apart from underlining that many other Governments had accorded higher percentage of relaxation in TET and that recruitment had been made only on the basis of the results in that test, it was urged that the selectee candidates had scored higher than the unsuccessful writ petitioners in the main recruitment process as well. As the NCTE guidelines had not been challenged by the respondents-writ-petitioners, in the overall scheme of evaluation of comparative merit, the selectee candidates having been adjudged to be superior
on the said touchstone, the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed, they insisted. That the assailment of the respondents-writ petitioners was delayed in the face of time limit of 60 days as referred to in the advertisement, was also asserted. Reliance was placed on the following
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma & ors. V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. ((1984) 4 SCC 251), Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) V/s Union of India and ors. ((2002) 2 SCC 333), K.H.Siraj V/s High Court of Kerala & ors. ((2006) 6 SCC 395), Union of India & ors. V/s S.Vinodh Kumar & ors. ((2007) 8 SCC 100), K.Manjusree V/s State of Andhra Pradesh
& anr. ((2008) 3 SCC 512), Dhananjay Malik & ors. V/s State of Uttaranchal & ors. ((2008) 4 SCC 171), Dingal and ors. V/s State of West Bengal & ors. ((2009) 1 SCC 768) and Vijendra Kumar Verma V/s Public Service Commission & ors. ((2011)1 SCC 150). Mr.Vigyan Shah leading the arguments on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners has assiduously urged that the underlying purpose of TET being to secure an uniform national performance standard and quality in
teaching, the relaxation in the qualifying percentage of pass therein, is an apparent compromise with this salutary objective and thus, the concession ranging from 10% to 20% as accorded by the State Government is impermissible and invalid. Moreover, no such concession was allowable during the process, but at best at the time of appointment in terms of the extant reservation policy of the State Government and that too, if construed to be warranted, he insisted. While admitting that the validity of Clause 9(a) of the guidelines dated 11.2.2011 though had been assailed in Durga Das (supra) before the Single
Bench of this Court and that the interim order of restraint passed therein initially was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court, the learned counsel also admitted that the writ petition was thereafter dismissed as infructuous. Referring to the notification dated 29.7.2011, Mr.Shah emphatically urged that the relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks did signify in no uncertain terms that no
candidate securing less than 55% marks could have been declared to have passed TET. He insisted that a conjoint reading of notifications dated 23.8.2010 and 29.7.2011 did unequivocally convey this conclusion. He urged as well that the candidates, who had secured marks between 55% to 60% on availing such relaxation could not be accommodated against the seats identified for unreserved category, as the same, if permitted, would denote compromise on merit, a consequence extinctive of the
cardinal objectives of the Act of 2009.
Referring to the circulars dated 17.6.1996, 24.6.2008 and 12.9.2012 referred to in the rejoinder laid in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13488/2012, Mr.Shah has urged that in terms thereof, the reserved category candidates availing the benefit of concession in qualifying marks could not have been accommodated against the seats meant for open category candidates. The learned counsel urged in
this backdrop that the circular no.F.7(1)DOP/A-II/99 dated 11.5.2011 of the Department of Personnel,
Government of Rajasthan permitting such migration is non est or in the alternative, has a prospective effect and could not have been applied to the selection process in hand.
Mr.Shah has thus urged that only those reserved category candidates, who had availed the benefit of age and fee relaxation, only could have permissibly migrated into the quota earmarked for the general candidates and none others. That in no view of the matter, relaxation/concession in excess of 5% in the pass marks of TET could have been accorded by the Government in supersession of the NCTE guidelines, has been emphatically underlined to contend that the selection process being vitiated by gross illegalities, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for.
Mr.Shah sought to endorse his arguments by referring to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr.Preeti Srivastava & anr. V/s The State of M.P.& ors. ((1999) 7 SCC 120), Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission V/s Baloji Badhavat & ors.
(2009(5) SCC 1) and Jitendra Kumar Singh & anr. V/s State of UP & ors. ((2010) 3 SCC 119), of this Court in Sushil Sompura & ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3964/2011 decided on 20.5.2011) and of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shabir Khan & anr. V/s The State of Punjab ((2012) 167 PLR 29).
The contentious pleadings and the assiduous submissions founded thereon have been duly assayed.
Before venturing into the thick of the controversy, it would be apt to clear the deck qua two peripheral issues, namely, non-impleadment of necessary parties and estoppel.
It has been emphatically asserted that the selected candidates, not having been impleaded as respondents, the writ petitions ought to have been rejected in limine.
The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabodh Verma (supra) and Dingal & Ors.(supra) have been relied upon to reinforce this contention. In both the decisions, their Lordships while disapproving the interference of the jurisdictional High Court with the selection of candidates
not impleaded, did observe in the contextual facts that neither they nor their representatives had been impleaded as parties.
Apart from the impeachment of the recruitment process as a whole to be in violation of the NCTE
Regulations and the essence of the Act 2009, in the instant proceedings, a scrutiny of the writ petitions involved disclose impleadment of some of the respondents whose selection had been impugned.
The State of Rajasthan and its functionaries as well as the NCTE and the concerned Panchayati Raj institution have been impleaded as respondents. The pleadings of the State Government and the NCTE in particular, attest the initiatives on their behalf to defend the process undertaken. Further, elaborate arguments have been advanced before the learned Single Judge as well as in the appeals on behalf of the selected candidates figuring as appellants touching upon all pertinent aspects of the
debate projecting a complete spectrum of assertions relevant to the issues. In this factual premise, we are of the view that the interest of the selected candidates as a whole has been adequately secured and that mere non impleadment of all of them does not render the impugned judgment and order illegal for want of fairness in action.
On the plea of estoppel as well, we are not inclined to non-suit the respondents/writ petitioners in view of legal issues of moment raised, impelling scrutiny thereof in public interest. A participatory process has been assiduously questioned on the ground of contravention of the provisions of the Act 2009, the guidelines of the NCTE, the Nodal Authority under the enactment, empowered to
prescribe the norms statutorily intended to administer the process of recruitment of teachers to accomplish the constitutional vision of providing a free and compulsory quality education to all children upto the age of 14 years.
